[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Solution for host-meta
John Bradley wrote on 2009-08-25: > The trust profile for SSL certs is going to have to deal with those > issues. Ok. I'm just saying that no matter how you mock up a URI to wrap a host (or a host/port or scheme/host/port), there's some kind of extraction to do. Whether it's a URN or a wholly invalid fake URI doesn't change that. My point was just that if I was making the choice, I'd use a URN that at least I could defend the validity of. > In any event we need a URI that can contain the host name for > hostmeta, and not be confused with a regular resource URI. Right. And URNs represent...whatever you define them to represent. That's what makes them different from URLs, which are always constantly being confused with web-accessible resources. There are places where I've come around on that and just accept that URLs work better, but as we see, identifying a host doesn't seem to be one of them. > We are close to http range-14 territory. If we don't want to > describe a host as a non-information resource, what is the URI. > That is the crux of the problem. Recall that I argued for not using a URI here, and simply using <Host>. Having lost that argument, I'm just explaining why I find this idea of making up URIs that aren't actually URIs but look like them to be rather silly. A URN is a perfectly valid URI and can mean anything you damn well please, and OASIS hands them to its TCs for free. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]